But what if the journey is complete at death? Even if we think that there should be more, that there are things left undone, what if death is simply the end? I understand wanting a little more time to see if I can get it right, but perhaps what we have is all we have, and we return to the flow undifferentiated.
I realize that this does violence to issues of our purpose here, but could it not be that our purpose is to simply be here for our allotted time? That ‘here’ is the sum and substance of our being?
So the purpose of the sum and substance of our being is to exist on earth for our allotted in a way in which we make complete asses of ourselves only to fall back into the great void.
This is conclusive proof that the essence of the universe is neither consciousness nor love but instead pure opium.
I disagree with the idea that a Soul can be acquired. Soul is not comparable to any kind of object. I also disagree with the idea that Soul has a function of reconciliation. Pluralism is the natural state of the Soul. Soul is better suited to recognize and support the existing diversity than force an artifical unity.
There is still a question here: who qualifies as a “conscious being” in your approach? Men? Mammals? Birds? Fish? the Ocean? the whole Earth? And what of more mythical beings?
One can approach Chaos in fear, or one can approach Chaos in respect. The Chaos is apparent only because our lack of recognizing the existing Pattern. Chaos is only a level of Pattern which is currently unknown to us. Soul is present in the Chaos too. If we accept the Chaos as it is, rather than trying to make it confirm to our own limited sense of Pattern, then we may gain much more from it then we could ever imagine.
The key is allowing the Chaos to be itself. To recognize it and accept it on its own terms. Acknowledge it as genuinely Other. And this can be a tremendous relief.
Here is my current approach to Spirit. Spirit is just a metaphor for Air. While Air is just a metaphor for Space. Well all have a Unique Spirit, a Unique Space that is ours alone.
I would agree that I did not make my Body.
My Body is certainly the product of the sexual union of my parents.
Just as their Bodies are the product of their parents.
And so on back and back and back.
So every Body belongs to the Earth.
She is the Mother of all Terrestrial Bodies.
Yet even the Mother Earth owes her Body to the Universe.
And to Whom does the Universe owe its Body?
Well, some of us do make complete asses of ourselves, don’t we? Conclusive proof that the essense is neither consciousness nor love?
And just what constitutes proof, Nick? Your ability to say that it is? The essense of the universe is that which it is. The words are the opium.
So too is the concept of the soul, which, within reincarnation, implies a continuation of I/me. A noble concept to be sure, but soul defined is soul destroyed. I do believe that xanderman was asking that question, or at least that is my take. Our imagination can lead us into awareness that goes past the words and concepts. That which is soul isn’t this or that, or shackled to this attribute or that attribute. It is what it is. The heart may take us to the core of our being, but it leaves behind the words and all of our speculations…
(If your heart is shriveled and black, then this probably does not mean much.)
Explanation may not be the goal.
It is not about explaining people. It is about understanding people. One of the people whom we can understand with Soul is ourselves. Consider the difference between the commands: “Explain yourself,” versus “Understand yourself.”
Are you serious?
that is the best you can come up with? Emotional rhetoric?
sigh
Ok. Since hearts don’t imagine, they pump blood, I’ll assume this boils down to you saying the soul is quantified by the imagination.
…ok then…
I would agree and say that the goal is satiating and comforting those that fear mortality.
In effect you are saying ‘the soul’ explains human behavior, while saying the soul doesn’t have to explain anything.
but just to play along, what ‘understanding’ does one gain from imagining a soul exists? What exactly about ‘ourselves’ can not be explained without adding such an erroneous x factor?
Why can’t anyone give me a reason to think such a thing as a soul should exist?
I don’t want to speak for xander, but since he and I used the same terms… When I say heart, it isn’t just emotion. It is an awareness that come’s from feelings and mind together. Not pure emotion, not intellectualizing, but simply an awareness that transcends either and that goes beyond words and concepts - including these words. Is this something real? Is it genuine? I can’t say for any but myself, but there are enough other folks who seem to grasp this… whatever it is, to confirm that this experience is valid.
I think that you and I have a certain commonality in understanding. Even with my ‘heart’ talk, and my reputation for ‘fuzzy’ language, I find little to suggest anything beyond my allotted time, although I’m more than capable of acknowledging the possibility. That such understanding takes us past language makes any discussion moot. It enters the realm of, as xander suggested, understanding beyond explanation.
I accept the onus of being clear as mud, and you’re welcome to dismiss this as nothing but gobblygook, but some of us have this on-going experiencing of heart/mind that defies explanation. Is this soul or our spirit? Call it what you will or deny it exists. Whatever it is really doesn’t care a whit for our explanations.
Unfortunately more than some of us are complete asses. Taking in the condition of man’s inhumanity towards man from the global perspective suggest a lot of asses at work. Even you admit to as much in your IMO misguided attempt to unify religions.
If you do not sense something rather peculiar in the fact that our species can simultaneously create such beauty in its art and yet be capable of the most barbaric cruelty, you are just not looking. This condition cannot be the direct representation of either inclusive love or consciousness and if this is the fullness of man’s being, our manifestations are more indicative of an intoxicated source rather than either love or consciousness.
But if you do see it, how can such hypocrisy be explained other than that man is capable of far more than life in hypocrisy
.
The only trouble is that you don’t have the soul to destroy so definitions are only indications pointing in a direction to something beyond our normal comprehension.
Yes,and to something objectively meaningless since it is imaginary.
If the soul lacks function it is also meaningless. It is what it is but at the same time it is simultaneously a part of a larger integrated whole and an individuality reflecting human purpose.
A soul is not necessary for life on earth in our normal mechanized state. It is man’s potential. As such, most don’t bother with it since our preoccupation with external life and the imagination it inspires, dominates our attention. Most are content to tolerate this condition while some seek more. it is an aspect of our diversity.
Sometime I am, sometimes not. Or did you mean something closer to the question, " Are you being serious?" in which case the answer is yes.
No. Did you read the quote? The idea here is that what the imagination “sees” is real. More real that ordinary sense perceptions. This method of “seeing” is not the product of the eyes. It is a product of the “heart.” “Heart” here not being the specific blood-pumping organ of the physical body.
What have I said here that states or implies that I was talking about immorality?
Incorrect. This is not about behaviorism. Behaviorism is an outside-in approach. The existence of Soul or even “mind” is denied in Behaviorist models.
Try it. Free your imagination. Awaken the Gods and the Devils. Gaze upon your beautiful, hideous Soul. Converse with your Daimon. See the mythic world all around you.
Your own question contains the answer. There is nothing reasonable, or rational about Soul. Just as there is nothing reasonable or rational about the imagination.
Think about this, they can take your posessions, that can take away your titles, they can erase your history, they can take away your liberty, they can take away everything, except your imagination. You can kill your own imagination, but nobody can take it away from you. But what is it?
An artificially forced unity at the spiritual level is demonic and holds no appeal for me. A short while ago I started a thread on “Acornology” which described the difference we have in our understandings of the soul.
In my understanding pluralism is the state of our being with the soul only in potential. What supports this diversity is your personality, the shell of the acorn, that your imagination supports. The soul or kernel of life of the acorn, has a much more profound essence that few ever experience because of their dominant personality.
First you have to experience consciousness and become familiar with the transition between consciousness and your normal lack of consciousness in order to be able to identify consciousness. Man is conscious while man on earth, in his normal states, is not. Consciousness is not labels but experiential.
All this is true for developing a healthy personality but has really little to do with the soul that doesn,t conform but simply affirms reality when allowed to live.
We are speaking of different things but that’s OK.
Nick, I have to hand it to you. You are far more able at twisting simplicity into mind boggling confusion than I am. And I thought I was the very best…
Is man capable of great good and even greater evil? Of course. Are we fallen angels? Yup. Is it hypocrisy? You would have to become aware, make choices and then fail yourself to be hypocritical. Few ever see themselves that far. It does not challenge the the nature of of our divinity, but our failure to allow it fruition.
No soul to destroy? My point exactly. That which is awareness defies the explanations. Read it again.
Objectively meaningless? Our imaginations are the force of our creativity. The ultimate source of our objectivity.
A soul without function is meaningless. This statement is so inscrutable even I can’t figure out what you’re saying. If you’re suggesting soul as some objectified entity, I have no way to respond, but as a part of a larger integrated whole with the capacity of love and goodness, I’d buy that.
The soul as potential? No. Whatever words are used, soul is process. That which was before and after us, we are merely reflections of that coming and going.
The whole point is that the seed of life in you that can develop into this divinity you refer to is unable to do so because of your habitual nature. We differ in that you believe you already possess what I believe exists in its infancy as potential
OK
I must strongly disagree and make it obviously so. This idea has been one of the most damaging for those whose aim is the experience of human meaning and purpose. Imagination only leads to imagination.
Imagination deprives you of the possibility of creativity.
The soul participates in the process of reconciling or uniting the higher and lower or heaven and earth. It does so by being in the image of God. It receives from above and nourishes below. Without the soul they remain divided.
Now, for the sake of those reading this, I must make my position clear as to the hypnotic power of imagination depriving man of his ability for self knowledge and the true feelings of his potential. I’ll copy a tale that illustrates man’s situation. Take from it what you will.
Yes, this is dust to dust and just the continuation on samsara but not the future for the soul coming into being.
From your point of view, you’re right. I look at the other side of the picture. We have divinity if we will allow it. Habitual nature? Perhaps. For most, absolutely. But since you don’t know me very well, it is a bit presumptive on your part to make that judgement for me. I realize that such an appraisal on my part raises hell with levels and layers, but…
“Imagination only leads to imagination.” And you know this how? In my POV, our imagination is that which allows us to recognize spontaneity and novelty as it comes into being; the stuff of new, ever changing directions in thought and action. Imagination refutes fixed principles, closed systems and intellectual absolutes. Again, this does damage to levels and layers. (shrug)
“Imagination deprives you of the possibility of creativity.” Well, perhaps it does in your existence, but in mine, imagination is the well spring of creativity. When presented with a new and novel experience, it is my ability to imagine the possibilities within that experience that is creativity. The ability to interact with the new and novel is the ability to grow, not from some fixed position of ‘knowing’ but from awareness of the possibilities aforded through imagination.
“The soul participates in the process of reconciling or uniting higher and lower or heaven and earth.” More layers and levels. As long as you dwell in the layers and levels you will never see the one.
The I/me simply exists as a manifestation of the soul’s individual journey - hence, we all appear to be different from each other. The soul is essential - without it to animate the the I/me, the I/me cannot exist. An electric light bulb without the electric current which flows through it is useless. The I/me is finite.
I struggle with this. Sure imagination is a tool of the of the creative force that literally possesses the creator. Imagination is also the starting point of creativity. (Two seperate perspectives or what Nick will call levels?). Certainly that which we think about eventually manifests as our reality - a reason to continuously reincarnate until the seeds of our creativity have the ‘right’ environment to grow. Thought itself is the power of creation. Remember the parable of the wishfulfilling tree?
Imagination itself is not the thing although it can help. Imagination is the seed of creation. Eventually the thought manifests and then there is ‘reality’ or maya as you know I prefer to call it. Reality (with a capital letter) or our awareness of it is beyond the imagination. So, when aligned with the awareness of Reality, our imagination is key to creation. But what are we creating?
You’ve touched on one of the main reasons I began the thread on “Simone, Plato, and the Cave.” The results of imagination you are describing is simply life as usual in the cave. Spontaneity, novelty, and the like are only responses to shadows. Let me make this clear that it is fine for those content to live in this way. I enjoy it and do it myself as part of my job. My quick mind at drawing novel associations makes people happy and brings joy to the elderly. However, I’ve learned over the years that as satisfying as it is, it masks another calling and has been known since ancient times as the Holy Faculty of Attention, the impartial experienceof reality. The satisfactions of imagination takes the place of conscious attention that leads to the openness one needs to receive from above the necessary help in which to gain freedom from the cave or the emotional attachments to life . Without it, one remains in the cave with their imagination. A person must begin to feel this calling, that there is something more, before this quality of attention can become meaningful
This is not the thread to discuss attention but gradually I intended to take some of Simone Weil’s observations on Plato and make threads on them in relation to the role of spirituality on earth such as “education.” Another is “Attention.” But for now,just consider how she describes the distinction between Attention and imagination in the link on the Simone, Plato thread:
“Grace” is the substance of this higher quality of attention. We must use our attention to create the space in which this kernel of life within can receive.
“The soul participates in the process of reconciling or uniting higher and lower or heaven and earth.” More layers and levels. As long as you dwell in the layers and levels you will never see the one.
[/quote]
What is the difference between High C and Middle C on the piano? They are the same but not the same. One is in the image of the other. Consider Meister Eckhart’s description:
They are the same but not the same. The soul is in the image of the creator.
But what is this kernel that receives? I’m hesitant to post her description since it is easy to be taken wrongly and made into something sentimental or “wonderful”, sacrificing its depth, and quickly degenerating it into fantasy. But in using her on the Plato thread, I don’t know how to avoid it. Just grit my teeth and hope for the best. Anyhow,in relation to the soul, she uses the analogy of hatching an egg similar to the idea of the acorn.
The choice between imagination and attention can only be rightly made in accordance to ones needs. Only what one needs will supply the necessary commitment.
As usual, I allowed myself to get pulled into metaphorical neverneverland. Back to a core issue.
Xanderman writes:
This is precisely the point. Put away the scalpels and tweezers! Understanding doesn’t come from laying the soul on a table and dissecting it into tiny pieces carefully labeled. The soul isn’t a ‘thing’ with edges and boundaries. It is a dynamic process that self-creates and co-creates imaginatively in the continuous interactions of the ceaseless flow of experiencing. Soul is the transactional relationship between the indeterminate and the bringing into being of the determininate world. Soul is heart and mind thinking and speaking the world into being.
